I guess he's saying that dropping a bomb on a nerve gas storage facility might not be the best idea, though I assume those facilities are far away from anything living. With Assad you never know, of course.

And they would possibly make the chemical situation nerve gas by cross-contaminating the area, which is why you pretty much need people in-country to neutralize them.

Que?

It's a problem armies have had before. Depending on the chemical agent involved, bombing the facility might only make it worse by releasing it into the air. There's specific procedures and chemicals you need to neutralize them, some of which require you to manually disassemble the weapon. This is why there's a force in Jordan specifically training to go in and seize them.

Didn't Israel launch some air strikes on Syrian chemical plants back in May? Of course, they weren't doing it to prevent atrocities like the one that just happened, but to prevent said weapons from falling into the hands of Hezbollah and the like.

_________________

LuciferionGalaxy wrote:

I also echo the obsession with Tribulation's Children of the Night. It's like you're biting into a Nepolean pastry. Addictive and unbelievably delicious. And no, I'm not fat.

How are chemicals worse than bullets and explosives? They kill all the same.

Well, you can usually feel a bullet penetrating your flesh, a large piece of metal is required to spit them at you, and those are usually loud as fuck. Chemicals are rarely heard or seen, so that's already two ways it's nearly undetectable. Usually you can only feel a chemical attack after you're already pretty much fucked, and if used in crowded areas, like the one in the OP seemingly was, you have a recipe for a silent disaster.

I also kind of can't believe you asked such a dumb question.

I do understand the practical differences of properties and usages of bullets, explosives and chemicals. My point is, is the crisis somehow worse now, after they switched guns to chemicals? (Well, I don't think anyone other than the dead have dropped their guns, but ya know)

It's pretty clear the whole place is a killing field, and a poisoned human is just as dead as one dismembered in an explosion. Lives don't seem to be a very valued thing around there, which is imo a bigger problem than how exactly people are massacred.

The point is that bullets and even to some degree bombs are precision weapons where it is possible and even plausible not to harm civilians, whereas chemical weapons are inherently imprecise and thus explicitly for the purpose of indiscriminate killing. You cannot limit civilian casualties with chemical or biological weapons. You can't even pretend to be trying to comply with international laws of war when using them.

_________________

iamntbatman wrote:

On Friday I passed an important milestone in my teaching career: a student shat himself

FloristOfVampyrism wrote:

That wasn't meant as a k.o. though, he specifically targeted an area of the cerebellum which, if ruptured, renders you a Jehovah's witness indefinitely

A German news outlet reported today that Iran threatened the United States if they were to intervene, saying that would be crossing a "red line", implying that if the United States got actively involved, Iran would too. This whole thing is getting out of hand.

I do understand the practical differences of properties and usages of bullets, explosives and chemicals. My point is, is the crisis somehow worse now, after they switched guns to chemicals? (Well, I don't think anyone other than the dead have dropped their guns, but ya know)

It's pretty clear the whole place is a killing field, and a poisoned human is just as dead as one dismembered in an explosion. Lives don't seem to be a very valued thing around there, which is imo a bigger problem than how exactly people are massacred.

I think the main point with chemical weapons is the mode of death, a bullet to the head and you have instant brain stem death and no pain or suffering(or if there is then it's miniscule) a chemical attack means mass suffering, you don't die once the chemical is inhaled or makes contact with the skin. It takes hours to die, hours and hours of suffering. How they realised there was a chemical attack was from the suffering victims, victims so obviously suffering from consumption of neurotoxic chemicals. If I had a choice in how I would die, neurotoxic chemicals would be far far far down the list.

I agree that a dead innocent is a dead innocent but this attack shows the depths of depravity that the Assad regime are willing to go to quell this uprising. Also bullets aren't banned, explosives aren't banned(conventional ones anyway) but chemical weapons sure as hell are banned. I think they're banned in the Geneva convention just like flame throwers but it could be a different convention I'm not sure. These weapons aren't meant for an instant kill, they're meant for suffering.

Also on a side and very coincidental note I was playing my library in random order and Hail of Bullets - Strategy of Attrition came on and that has a lyric about chemical weapons...

What if it was one of the rebel groups or foreign fighters who used the chemicals? Not all of them care about civilian lives. Maybe they are trying to "frame" Assad and provoke western involvement. Not saying this is more probable than the other way round, but one should always be careful about drawing quick conclusions.

SadisticGratification, neurotoxins are meant for instant killing, and if you manage to get such a minuscule amount of them in your body that it takes you hours to die, you've been exceptionally (un)lucky. They kill in a minute or two.

And who said a bullet goes through your brain stem? Lucky fuck you are if that's the case. It is a known fact that the number of head wounds has gone up a lot since the times before WWI, and while there obviously are insta-kill gunshot wounds, think about a gut wound in conditions where you can't get immediate surgery (say, a suburb in Syria), and you can look forward to a day or a few of pure agony while you try to die of blood loss, sepsis and peritonitis. An equally agonizing amount of neurotoxins could be immediately treated with a pen-sized automatic atropine injection.

The mode of death has little to do with this. It's the immense killing capacity, and the lack of precision. And perhaps the unwillingness to revisit the WWI trench hell again.

Depends on the compound, some of the neurotoxins can kill you fairly quickly(never instantly, seconds maybe) but a lot of neurotoxins can take hours, days even. Lead poisoning in lethal amounts can take a while to kill you. Not to mention the residual affects of a chemical attack, poisoning groundwater for months even years to come. People who didn't get enough to kill them but just enough to fuck them up severely.

But yes you are right on the bullets point, a gut wound with no medical treatment would be awful beyond comprehension. Like your sig says "Chest wounds suck" and I'm not trying to make bullets out as some sort of humane way of killing someone but they have much less disastrous consequences attached to their use than chemical weapons.

The point is that bullets and even to some degree bombs are precision weapons where it is possible and even plausible not to harm civilians, whereas chemical weapons are inherently imprecise and thus explicitly for the purpose of indiscriminate killing. You cannot limit civilian casualties with chemical or biological weapons. You can't even pretend to be trying to comply with international laws of war when using them.

What RonimuZ is trying to say is that Syrian factions have already been engaging in indiscriminate killings for the past two years, be it through the use of bullets, explosives, sharp objects, whatever else you can think of. It's not about which weapon is more precise than the other. Also, it's not like chemical weapons are new to the conflict; there have been countless speculations about their use by the government side for over a year now.

^ Yeah. The problem is they want to kill each other, and I don't know what the world can do about that. Kill them? Take away their weapons? They'll fight anyone who tries to do either of those things, and probably keep fighting each other anyway, unless the interveners piss them off so bad they want to fight them instead.

SadisticGratification wrote:

I agree that a dead innocent is a dead innocent but this attack shows the depths of depravity that the Assad regime are willing to go to quell this uprising.

That it does, but I don't see that as a huge step for them. It's not like they have given a shit before either.

Depends on the compound, some of the neurotoxins can kill you fairly quickly(never instantly, seconds maybe) but a lot of neurotoxins can take hours, days even. Lead poisoning in lethal amounts can take a while to kill you. Not to mention the residual affects of a chemical attack, poisoning groundwater for months even years to come. People who didn't get enough to kill them but just enough to fuck them up severely.

Let's make this clear: the kind of neurotoxins manufactured these days with the intention of turning them into weapons are extremely lethal, and do not, in any way, compare to lead poisoning. They are designed to kill, immediately, because any other method makes zero sense from the military point of view.

You may be thinking about stuff like mustard gas, which is a blistering agent, or phosgene, and actually left troops from the WWI disabled up until the 70's or so. They are not nerve agents, but rely on actually damaging tissue, especially in the lungs, and do visible damage. Unlike nerve gases, that only have one visible effect, as in leaving people visibly dead.

Also, about the idea of bombing the chemical weapon sites: it's not a bad idea, if the type of the weapons is known, and there's evidence that the stuff is stored as a binary. Which is a very good idea from the users point of view, for both safety and shelf life reasons. Letting the compounds mix while in flight, and you don't have any real risk of getting your own gun crew or whatever accidentally killed.

And yes, death by a neurotoxins in sufficient quantity would not be that bad, when compared to being, say, shot in the gut in the Himalayas, crucified upside down over a Cajun BBQ grill, having your entrails eaten by a malicious maggot from the sub-Saharan Africa, getting a low dosage plutonium poisoning, or dying from pancreatic cancer.

"Initial symptoms following exposure to sarin are a runny nose, tightness in the chest and constriction of the pupils. Soon after, the victim has difficulty breathing and experiences nausea and drooling. As the victim continues to lose control of bodily functions, the victim vomits, defecates and urinates. This phase is followed by twitching and jerking. Ultimately, the victim becomes comatose and suffocates in a series of convulsive spasms."

from what i've read today online and seen on the news this morning, it looks like it's only a matter of time before military intervention happens... Also, sounds like Russia may be putting their bets on the Syrian Government on account of the amount of foreign fighters from Putin's favorite semi-autonomous Russian state, Chechnya. The numbers on the exact figures are pretty blurry, but the Kavkaz center (which is basically the Caucasus Emirate's media outlet) says around 150 fighters from the Caucasus are actively fighting in Syria, the problem for Russia being once this war is over, they return back to the North Caucasus and come back more battle-hardened than before, and they're already more than a match for the Russian security forces in the region.

_________________

LuciferionGalaxy wrote:

I also echo the obsession with Tribulation's Children of the Night. It's like you're biting into a Nepolean pastry. Addictive and unbelievably delicious. And no, I'm not fat.

"Initial symptoms following exposure to sarin are a runny nose, tightness in the chest and constriction of the pupils. Soon after, the victim has difficulty breathing and experiences nausea and drooling. As the victim continues to lose control of bodily functions, the victim vomits, defecates and urinates. This phase is followed by twitching and jerking. Ultimately, the victim becomes comatose and suffocates in a series of convulsive spasms."

Doesn't really sound like immediate killing to me.

I'd take a bullet in the gut any day over that...

Napero wrote:

You may be thinking about stuff like mustard gas, which is a blistering agent, or phosgene, and actually left troops from the WWI disabled up until the 70's or so. They are not nerve agents, but rely on actually damaging tissue, especially in the lungs, and do visible damage. Unlike nerve gases, that only have one visible effect, as in leaving people visibly dead.

I know mustard gas isn't neurotoxic, it's main mode of death was through inhalation and it is highly damaging to tissue. Look I'm done arguing here, I just can't see how anyone in their right mind could be so blasé about chemical weapons but you are and I'm not gonna change your mind so there you go.

There is no question that Doctors without Borders (MSF) has emerged as a political arm of US foreign policy during the Syrian crisis. And i am not talking about whether chemical weapons was used or who used it (personally, both war criminal sides of the conflict in Syria are capable of the worst atrocities and lies) but I am talking about the unprecedented statement by MSF: this organization never took such a stance before and on accounts people and without investigation. This never to my knowledge happened with the organization before. Do you think that MSF would ever make a similar statement about Israeli massacres? When it comes to Israel, Western relief organizations hide behind the refrain: we are not political organization and we only do our work. But in Syria, there seems to be different standards applied. You think we are not noticing?

I don't know what happened, but I'm inclined to think that the opposition's story isn't true. They've been caught in big lies before, the timing and location is suspicious, they've staged massacres, and they've used chemical weapons themselves (chlorine). I will continue to reserve judgement.

Well based on that Kerry press conference it looks like yet another air war in the Middle East is going to begin soon. C130's are being positioned off Cyprus and unidentified jet squadrons have been flying south from continental Europe.

_________________

iamntbatman wrote:

On Friday I passed an important milestone in my teaching career: a student shat himself

FloristOfVampyrism wrote:

That wasn't meant as a k.o. though, he specifically targeted an area of the cerebellum which, if ruptured, renders you a Jehovah's witness indefinitely

There is no question that Doctors without Borders (MSF) has emerged as a political arm of US foreign policy during the Syrian crisis. And i am not talking about whether chemical weapons was used or who used it (personally, both war criminal sides of the conflict in Syria are capable of the worst atrocities and lies) but I am talking about the unprecedented statement by MSF: this organization never took such a stance before and on accounts people and without investigation. This never to my knowledge happened with the organization before. Do you think that MSF would ever make a similar statement about Israeli massacres? When it comes to Israel, Western relief organizations hide behind the refrain: we are not political organization and we only do our work. But in Syria, there seems to be different standards applied. You think we are not noticing?

I don't know what happened, but I'm inclined to think that the opposition's story isn't true. They've been caught in big lies before, the timing and location is suspicious, they've staged massacres, and they've used chemical weapons themselves (chlorine). I will continue to reserve judgement.

I agree. It's been established that the rebels have no problems using nasty methods to fight this war, and I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the incident where a rebel removed and ate a human heart saying "God is good". I'm not saying Assad is a saint, but the American and definitely Israeli propaganda machine has been going full speed over this conflict which is in itself extremely suspicious.

These genetic liars are so desperate to bomb the Assad regime into history because the global plan to subvert and conquer the Middle and Near East has had its timetable scuppered by the Syrian government refusing to fall in the wake of a civil war orchestrated through psychopathic mercenaries by the hidden forces behind NATO and Israel that are now planning to bomb Syria via their political puppets who dare not refuse to take orders - not that this lot need much encouragement.

They are planning to kill and maim still more people with brown faces on the way to controlling the whole of the vast region known as Eurasia and the plan was for them to have invaded Lebanon and Iran by now so they are seeking to bomb away the blockage and stalemate in Syria where the NATO armed-and-funded 'rebels' have been losing ground to the Assad military.

To do so, they are claiming with no evidence that Assad ordered a chemical attack on his own people. They have tried this before without success when it became clear that the alleged 'Assad' chemical attacks were instigated by the very 'rebels' that NATO controls to manufacture an excuse for NATO to invade.

Now, in pathetic desperation, they are doing the same again and this time refusing to take no for an answer or produce any credible evidence (they can't) because their masters' timetable demands that Assad be removed now – just as it did with Gaddafi in Libya.

And the global corporate media is playing its usual part in repeating the lies as fact and in doing so the blood will be on their hands, too, as it has been throughout corporate media history and yet they are so stupid, so uninformed, so moronic, that they can't see that they and their families are going to be subject to the same Orwellian fascist society that they are providing the daily propaganda to justify - David Icke.

David Vaughan Icke (/aɪk/; IKE, born 29 April 1952) is an English writer, public speaker and former professional footballer. He promotes conspiracy theories about global politics and has written extensively about them.

Icke was a BBC television sports presenter and spokesman for the Green Party, when in 1990 a psychic told him that he was a healer who had been placed on Earth for a purpose, and that the spirit world was going to pass messages to him. In March 1991 he held a press conference to announce that he was a "Son of the Godhead" – a phrase he said later the media had misunderstood – and the following month told the BBC's Terry Wogan show that the world would soon be devastated by tidal waves and earthquakes. He said the show changed his life, turning him from a respected household name into someone who was laughed at whenever he appeared in public.[1]

He continued nevertheless to develop his ideas, and in four books published over seven years – The Robots' Rebellion (1994), And the Truth Shall Set You Free (1995), The Biggest Secret (1999), and Children of the Matrix (2001) – set out a worldview that combined New-Age spiritualism with a denunciation of totalitarian trends in the modern world. At the heart of his theories lies the idea that a secret group of reptilian humanoids called the Babylonian Brotherhood controls humanity, and that many prominent figures are reptilian.

Ah, good move. I should take note. You clearly proved by association that John_Sunlight is a conspiracy theorist. Next time I don't like something you say I'll find a Hitler quote that says something similar and post it. Because as everyone knows everything Hitler ever said is wrong per definition and everyone who agrees with him on anything at all is a nazi sympathizer.

I don't know what happened, but I'm inclined to think that the opposition's story isn't true. They've been caught in big lies before, the timing and location is suspicious, they've staged massacres, and they've used chemical weapons themselves (chlorine). I will continue to reserve judgement.

I think inhumanist is one of those people who take the internet too seriously. Relax, J_S and I have known each other for years, as I said I was poking fun at him, he'll live.

As for what he quoted though, I think it is overshooting the target to say MSF is a political wing of the U.S. government for making a statement that the U.S. government may find useful for its foreign policy ambitions. Should be noted that MSF did not say or imply anything about which side is responsible for the attack, only that they treated people for nerve gas poisoning and that a number of them died. I have no trouble believing that is true from the pictures and videos that have been circulating on the internet. The question is who is responsible, and MSF did not make any indication or utter any suspicion in either direction. Also, the claim that MSF is taking a political stance on the issue by reporting what they treated patients for seems entirely baseless. Such a statement is not a political stance by itself.

Saudi intelligence has issued a tacit threat to have terrorist attacks carried out in Russia at the Winter Olympics in February 2014, should the state continue to support the Assad regime in Syria.

The threat was revealed in leaked transcripts of a closed-door meeting three weeks ago between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

It appears that following initial vocal concerns expressed by Gulf state diplomats and senior leaders of the Syrian opposition, the leaked material was provided to the Russian media. More details then emerged in the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, which is sympathetic to Hezbollah and thus extremely inhospitable toward Saudi Arabia.

The respected middle east news agency Al Monitor carries a translated version of the As-Safir report which suggests that during the talks, Bandar, who heads the primary Saudi intelligence agency, allegedly presented a cornucopia of offers and threats with regards to Syria.

In return for Russia’s cooperation, Bandar is alleged to have promised to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria should Assad be forced from power.

Perhaps the most interesting snippet in the report, has Bandar suggesting that should Russia elect not to reach an agreement over Syria, Chechen terrorist attacks may be carried out on the Russian hosted Winter Olympics next year in Sochi.

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year.” Bandar is alleged to have said. What makes the pledge threatening is that he is also quoted as saying “The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us.”

Bandar also allegedly stated that Chechen terrorists currently in Syria were a tool that could be used at will.

“The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us.” Bandar is quoted as saying. “These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.” he added.

Bandar also allegedly said that he was speaking with the full backing of the US government.

The London Telegraph also reported on the leaked notes, noting the Saudi prince’s attempt to further sweeten Putin with a secret sweeping oil deal and a pledge to safeguard Russia’s gas contracts should he abandon support for the Assad government.

The deal appears to be in the form of an offer to form a Russian/OPEC alliance on oil production that would significantly affect global markets. While Syria is not a major oil producer, any military action taken against the country could have wider repercussions on oil markets.

Vladimir Putin is said to have responded “We know that you have supported the Chechen terrorist groups for a decade. And that support, which you have frankly talked about just now, is completely incompatible with the common objectives of fighting global terrorism that you mentioned. We are interested in developing friendly relations according to clear and strong principles.”

The Russian president is also said to have commented “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters.” referring to the rebels.

Bandar is said to have responded that there would be “no escape from the military option” if Russia were to decline the Saudi terms for accord.

The leaked transcripts do dovetail with initial reports that sourced anonymous European and Arab diplomats.

It is possible that the leaked transcripts could be embellished by Russian intelligence, for propaganda purposes. However, the detail contained within them makes them appear authentic. Regardless, the report makes for compelling reading, particularly considering Saudi Arabia’s eagerness to take decisive action to overthrow and remove the Syrian government permanently.

"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out. And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences." That's what Obama said. I haven't followed the story as I have been busy the last few days with a road trip but that is completely contradictory. Makes it sound like to me they concluded it based on fairly circumstantial evidence...

_________________In reference to Baby Metal

tanabata wrote:

I heard one of the moderators blacklisted them because of his subjective opinion. Well If that is the case, you sir have shit taste and you ain't my nigga!

Well, as if the entire situation wasn't already unsettling, it looks to be even more so (and somehow also more convoluted). The latest leaks to the press indicate the American intelligence community "lost track" of Syria's chemical weapons a few months ago during a particularly chaotic combat period. In other words, NATO can't even intelligently try to intentionally avoid bombing the weapons and contaminating the area, because they don't know where they are in the first place.

EDIT: and I didn't see this till just now, but the British Parliament shot down Cameron's request for military action and the White House is hinting they might do airstrikes alone. Even more

_________________

iamntbatman wrote:

On Friday I passed an important milestone in my teaching career: a student shat himself

FloristOfVampyrism wrote:

That wasn't meant as a k.o. though, he specifically targeted an area of the cerebellum which, if ruptured, renders you a Jehovah's witness indefinitely

Are you serious? How anyone can think a throwing bombs would be a good idea is beyond me. Because interventions in the form of bomb strikes always turn out sooo well for the civilian population. But that's the American way I guess! Humanitarian bombs bringing democracy to uncivilized countries! Just like in Afghanistan! Just like in Kosovo! Just like in Japan back in '45! People watch too many stupid movies/play too many stupid video games. If you like to get your information condensed into short texts and pictures, take these instead: http://imgur.com/gallery/khRcU

^ I suppose. My point was the Syrian government doesn't seem to be very stupid, which sort of is another problem. I really don't envy those who are in charge, they have to choose between a bad option and a worse option. Intervention would probably be a pretty bad thing, and letting the government keep doing their thing is a pretty bad thing too. I suppose part of the question is what happens after the Syrian government has killed a third of the population and rules the country without opposition (supposing the opposition doesn't win, but at the moment it doesn't look like they're winning) - will they threaten neighbouring countries like Israel? That'd surely provoke USA, so if it's an intervention either way, intervening now would probably be the better option. But I don't think there are any good options in situations like that.

Assad is a smart man, indeed. That's why I don't think he ordered or even approved of the chemical Attack because it would be an incredibly stupid move, provoking NATO and/or US military involvement. If one of his forces' generals made the decision on his own or if one of the anti-government factions used the chems to give the US an incentive to intervene and maybe even deliberately target certain civilians for one reason or another (keep in mind that there are plenty of reports about parts of the rebel alliance commiting their own atrocities, and not all of these can be blamed on government propaganda) remains unclear. The US is not the world police, their interest in the region is indubitably economic, not humanitarian. It seems they oppose Assad first and foremost because he chooses to cooperate with Russia when it comes to oil (which is the exact reason Putin supports him). The western media has relentlessly demonized both men even though neither Obama nor Cameron nor Merkel are any better in my book and would probably act the same if a civil war swept their respective nations and a rebel alliance tried to overthrow their government. Also keep in mind that a large part of the Syrian population still seems to support Assad because to them the rebels are worse, no matter how despotic he is. Since Al Quaida, Hezbollah and similarly trustworthy groups are involved in the alliance this should hardly surprise anyone. If Assad is overthrown we can probably look forward to a Syria under Sharia law. After the different rebel factions are done fighting each other that is. The current alliance is largely grown out of necessity, when their common enemy is gone they will indubitably fight each other over who gets to rule, leading to even more bloodshed. Either the US or Russia will need to put an end to that eventually to secure their interests. What is certain is that the civilian population will lose.

The justification for an US intervention is extremely thin. It's always a bad idea to fight war with more war from a humanitarian p.o.v., and past military interventions have clearly shown this in my opinion. But apart from that the premises for a so called "humanitarian mission" are simply not clear enough. It is obviously very hard to get any clear facts about the events and who is to blame for what. An intervention at this point would be acting on assumptions and guesses, like the adventurous guess that trying to bomb Assad would actually be beneficial (the US government seems to have no intent to do any ground missions). My adventurous guess is that this is the Obama government trying to distract from domestic issues (NSA). Oldest trick in the world.

_________________

Under_Starmere wrote:

iHumanism: Philosophy phoned in.

Metantoine wrote:

If Summoning is the sugar of fantasy metal, is Manowar the bacon?

Last edited by inhumanist on Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Also keep in mind that a large part of the Syrian population still seems to support Assad because to them the rebels are worse, no matter how despotic he is. Since Al Quaida, Hezbollah and similarly trustworthy groups are involved in the alliance this should hardly surprise anyone. If Assad is overthrown we can probably look forward to a Syria under Sharia law.

Ah, I haven't actually paid much attention to who fights on which side, other than reading that a few Chechens fight for the rebels, which is something Russia isn't fond of. So it indeed probably is a bloodshed after bloodshed in any case.